Intra-cervical versus i.v. fentanyl for abortion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The majority of abortions are performed using a para-cervical block (without general anaesthesia) and involve a significant amount of pain. If fentanyl was given with the lidocaine in the para-cervical block, it potentially could improve pain control while decreasing side effects and avoiding i.v. access for women having abortions. METHODS: This was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of two treatment arms: (i) para-cervical block with 100 microg of fentanyl i.v; or (ii) para-cervical block with 100 microg of fentanyl intra-cervically (i.c.) for first trimester abortion. The setting was a free-standing urban abortion clinic. The outcome measures were pain scores and side effects. RESULTS: A total of 104 women received the fentanyl i.v. and 98 received the fentanyl i.c. The two groups were similar with respect to age, gestational age, obstetric history, anxiety and depression. Pain scores (0-10) were 4.7 and 5.7 for dilation (P = 0.01) and 3.8 and 5.6 for suctioning (P < 0.001) in the i.v. and i.c. groups, respectively. Side effects were similar, but more women in the i.v. group received anti-emetics. More women in the i.c. group were dissatisfied with the pain control. CONCLUSION: I.v. fentanyl is more effective than i.c. fentanyl for pain control in abortion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".